“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.

Other contributors, notably NOAA’s tornado expert, Harold Brooks, pointed out that it might have something to do with the fact that alarmists had made a big deal about high tornado numbers a couple of years ago! To which Shepherd replies

“Exactly Harold, and I made the same point then as well, I think the tornado issue has been abused on both sides of climate disc”

So, just to put the record straight, sceptics are not claiming:-

1) Global warming will necessarily result in less tornadoes.

2) Lower tornado numbers are evidence of global cooling.

What we are pointing out is that there is absolutely no evidence at all to support alarmist claims that tornadoes are getting or will get worse. NOAA themselves say that there has been little trend in the last 55 years and the figures suggest a decline since the 1970’s in tornado numbers.

So, how on earth can this be interpreted as “abuse of the tornado issue”? Since when is putting the record straight, and correcting false statements, abuse?

Your title is dead on. I have used Alarmist literature against them, because their claims of doom and gloom are not coming to pass. I use it to show their alarmism. Yet they are so dense, they immediately project their own actions as those of others.

The tornado drought means nothing EXCEPT it is a refutation of their Armageddon claims. Yet they do not have the intelligence to realize that.

Did I read somewhere that a large majority of meteorologists don’t buy into the CAGW scam? If so, the only way to stop the misinformation is for them to oust the leadership that keeps spinning the CA part. NASA scientists are stepping forward- now for some other groups to clean up the own houses.

There is a summary (11.8 MB) and a Full SREX (31MB) and just to keep the numbers rolling they claim 220 authors, 62 countries, and 18611 review comments.

I did not open either of these and learn exactly where their graphic is found – I’m not that interested. What caught my attention is the shape of the graphic because it looks like one of the charts showing risk of various investments from “cash” on the left to S&P500 in the center, and emerging markets on the right – followed by tulip bulbs on the far right.

One only needs to add “sales of ice cream” way out to the left and there would be a “Jump the shark” moment.

Why are highly paid folks such as Marshall Shepherd and Harold Brooks engaging in boomerang twits?

They probably think this is part of their “outreach” project. They probably think there’s more chance of influencing twits on a format that is too short to present evidence and too short for anyone to prove you are wrong.

So why do you consider yourself the sceptics’ spokesman on this. Please speak for yourself not others.

In any case the two statements here are contradictory. I don’t know whether that was what you intended but another reason to speak for yourself. Any confusion will be your own and not the fault of “sceptics” whoever you may intend that to mean.

It is sad when the President of the AMS cannot see the difference between one side making wild statements with no basis in fact, and the other side, which uses facts to put the record straight.

It’s not just tornadoes. The ENTIRE skeptical effort is to “set the record straight” that has been skewed out of all proportions by the claims of CAGW activists (which includes the IPCC). Had the alarmists not made such bogus claims – including tornadoes – and created the entire global warming scare, the skeptics would have no reason to even exist.

Skepticism, pretty much by definition, is a reaction to weak or unfounded claims. Duh.